The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions from an examination for discovery that was unilaterally adjourned by the defendant's previous counsel after a single objection regarding the scope of medical history questions.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the adjournment improper as it did not meet the high threshold of futility required by Rule 34.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court ordered the discovery to resume and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, criticizing the defendant's counsel's conduct as unprofessional and an abuse of process.
